This year the Genetics Services Research Unit housed in the Metabolic, Cardiovascular and Inflammatory Disease Genomics Branch, analyzed and reported data from a series of studies that reflect intramural and international collaborations,led by Special Volunteer, Dr. Barbara Biesecker. 1. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess consent to undergo genome sequencing. To make an informed choice to participate in a genome sequencing study that may yield primary and secondary findings, one understands relevant information in the context of personal values. Consent forms to enroll in a sequencing study can be long and complex. The efficacy of the professional encounter to consider the information contained in the consent form and make an informed choice is unknown. Women diagnosed with primary ovarian insufficiency and eligible for a sequencing study were randomized to participate in one of two encounters with a genetic counselor: a consent intervention using a lower literacy, less dense form or a standard consent encounter. Data were complete for 188 of 225 participants. The average time was 32min for the intervention and 34min for the standard, with the intervention encounter generating more questions from participants. At six weeks following consent, no differences were found between the two groups in primary outcomes: 'sequencing benefits' knowledge (d=0.12, 95%CI: -0.03,0.27), 'sequencing limitations' knowledge (d=0.04, 95%CI: -0.13,0.21), expected personal benefits (d=-0.01, 95%CI: -0.26,0.23), and decisional conflict (d=0.04, 95%CI: -0.14,0.21). Although intentions to learn secondary variants were high, only 60% (113) of participants made an informed choice as defined by the multi-dimensional model of informed choice. We found that a modified consent intervention was as effective as a standard encounter and led to more interaction. Our data suggest that making decisions to receive secondary findings may be particularly challenging and in need of further investigation to achieve informed choice. 3. As genome science advances, people receiving personalized genetic information may receive reinterpretations of pathogenicity. Little is known about responses to adjusted results. We examined how reinterpretations might affect attitudes about genetic testing and intentions to share results with family.Data were collected from high-socioeconomic-status participants (n=58) in a genome sequencing study. Twenty-nine originally learned they were carriers of Duarte variant galactosemia, based on a variant that was reclassified as benign. Positive testers (n=19) had a newly identified causative variant and remained carriers. Negative testers (n=10) learned they were no longer carriers. Twenty-nine controls were carriers for a disease of comparable severity with no reclassification. Participants completed baseline, immediate, and 3-month follow-up surveys.Approximately 80% of participants demonstrated complete or partially accurate recall of their results and reported positive or neutral reactions to their result and about genetic information more generally. Positive testers reported lower intentions to share the change in their result with family. Controls reported the lowest intentions to learn future results. There were no significant group differences or changes over time in perceived ambiguity or negative emotions.The results suggest that high-socioeconomic-status participants understand reinterpretations conferring a neutral change or a change from carrier to noncarrier status. Participants' responses to changes in carrier results for a low-risk condition indicated minimal adverse effects. 4. While consensus regarding the return of secondary genomic findings in the clinical setting has been reached, debate about such findings in the research setting remains. We developed a hybrid, research-clinical translational genomics process for research exome data coupled with a CLIA-validated secondary findings analysis. Eleven intramural investigators from ten institutes at the National Institutes of Health piloted this process. Nearly 1,200 individuals were sequenced and 14 secondary findings were identified in 18 participants. Positive secondary findings were returned by a genetic counselor following a standardized protocol, including referrals for specialty follow-up care for the secondary finding local to the participants. Interviews were undertaken with 13 participants 4 months after receipt of a positive report. These participants reported minimal psychologic distress within a process to assimilate their results. Of the 13, 9 reported accessing the recommended health care services. A sample of 107 participants who received a negative findings report were surveyed 4 months after receiving it. They demonstrated good understanding of the negative secondary findings result and most expressed reassurance (64%) from that report. However, a notable minority (up to 17%) expressed confusion regarding the distinction of primary from secondary findings. This pilot shows it is feasible to couple CLIA-compliant secondary findings to research sequencing with minimal harms. Participants managed the surprise of a secondary finding with most following recommended follow up, yet some with negative findings conflated secondary and primary findings. Additional work is needed to understand barriers to follow-up care and help participants distinguish secondary from primary findings. 4. We further report an experiment to assess how research participants interpret variants of unknown significance in the context of heritable cardiovascular disease. Comparisons were made between two classification systems and outcomes assessed. Specifically, we tested whether participants perceived differences in genetic variant subclassifications on risk comprehension, risk perception, worry, perceived uncertainty, and intentions. Order-randomized hypothetical cardiovascular genetic results were given to 289 participants enrolled in a genome sequencing study. Three categories of variants were presented to participants: variants of uncertain significance, possibly pathogenic, and likely pathogenic. Responses to the first variant presented were analyzed in a between-groups analysis, and responses to all 3 variants were analyzed in a within-groups analysis. When presented with all 3 results, participants distinguished among the subclassifications on all outcomes (P<0.001). When given only a possibly pathogenic result, their risk perceptions were similar to those of variants of uncertain significance, but they were more worried and intended to behave as if they had received a likely pathogenic result. Individuals depended more on their affective responses such as worry when they received only one result (P<0.05). Participants are better able to distinguish pathogenicity subclassifications when presented with multiple categories. Individuals who receive a single uncertain result in a cardiovascular disease gene may benefit from interventions to decrease worry, calibrate risk perceptions, and motivate variant-appropriate behaviors.